Liberal feminism is in small or large part to blame for Giuliana Rancic’s breast cancer
E! News host Giuliana Rancic, married to The Apprentice winner Bill Rancic, announced October 17 that at the age of 36 she was diagnosed with breast cancer.
People reported Rancic underwent a double lumpectomy on October 18. Surgeons also removed potentially cancerous lymph nodes.
Rancic will begin radiation treatment in six weeks. Thankfully her prognosis is good because her cancer was caught early.
While the cause of Rancic’s breast cancer cannot be ascertained, her reproductive history was sure to have played a part.
My goal by writing this post is not to condemn Rancic. It is to encourage her to research breast cancer and to use her experience and platform to educate women.
At present, the Rancics are focusing on the wrong message: diagnosis, not prevention…
Bill said during that interview, “And that’s the main message I think, you have to get at this thing sooner rather than later.”
No, that should not be the main message. The main message should be to educate how to avoid breast cancer altogether. But Giuliana concurred:
I have so many young female viewers who watch me and I want to help them. I have an amazing platform to really help people so that’s why it was really important for me share this story.
I think we’ve done such a good job of raising awareness for breast cancer, but then you have to take awareness and turn it into action. The action for women is just make that appointment with your doctor, make sure you’re going to your yearly appointment, figure out how to give yourself a self exam.
Again, diagnosing breast cancer is certainly important, but more important is preventing it.
A study published just this month for the United Nations reported that “[b]etween 1980 and 2010, the number of women diagnosed with breast cancer increased more than two and a half times.”
Furthermore, Cancer Research UK reported last year that “breast cancer rates in women aged between 30 and 49 have jumped by 15% in the space of one generation,” and “[w]hat’s even worse is that in young women, breast tumour cells are often more vigorous – faster growing and more aggressive – and harder to defeat.
What is the cause of this terrible phenomenon?
While there are many factors, one key factor is delayed childbearing. Did Giuliana know that putting her career before marriage and children would likely play a part in her contracting breast cancer? Quoting the Susan G. Komen site:
Women who have their first child at later ages are at increased risk of breast cancer compared to women who have their first child at younger ages. For example, women who give birth for the first time after age 35 are 40% more likely to get breast cancer than women who have their first child before age 20.
As The Daily Mail bluntly put it:
And while the causes of breast cancer may seem many and varied, what is becoming clear is that women’s 21st century lifestyle could be to blame….
“I had to understand why so many women were dying of the disease,’ says Prof [Dame Valerie] Beral. ‘We now know the main reason is childbirth – or lack of it.”
Moreover, she says breast cancer is nearly 10 times more likely to strike Western women than those from poorer nations.
“The difference is that in the West we don’t have as many children and we don’t have them so early. Nor do we breast-feed as much. These things are proven to cut breast cancer rates.”
Giuliana compounded her risk of breast cancer if she used hormonal contraceptives to delay childbearing. Did her doctor tell her?
Has Giuliana had an abortion? That, too, increases the risk of breast cancer. One reason is it, too, delays childbearing.
Finally, compounding her risks, Giuliana underwent two rounds of fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization. She was preparing for her third round when discovering the breast cancer.
In fact, Giuliana’s doctor specifically told her to get a mammogram before beginning the third round because, quoting People, “pregnancy hormones can cause certain cancers – such as breast or ovarian – to accelerate.”
An article insert attempts to reassure women “professionals say in vitro fertilization procedures are not likely to have caused her breast cancer,” although”IVF may affect some pre-existing cancers,” and it has not yet been “establish[ed] whether repeated IVF treatments affect a woman’s risk.”
This is feminism altering science, because it is an acknowledged fact, even by Komen, that…
Higher levels of estrogen in the blood are linked to an increased risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. Researchers are studying a possible link to breast cancer in premenopausal women as well.
Of course, fertility treatments include injections of estrogen.
Had Giuliana followed her biological clock and the natural path of life women walked before the introduction of liberal feminism, she would have remained a virgin until marrying at a much younger age and had children younger, likely avoiding infertility and breast cancer altogether.
The Rancics need to use their tragic experience to educate on these aspects of breast cancer – avoiding it – rather than discovering it.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Amen, Jill. You’re absolutely right.
Sigh. Jill, I’m usually with you.
But just because Rancic did not marry til later in life does not mean that she put her career over marriage and having children. Some might say that she waited til she was wiser and could choose a good man.
She could also be natually infertile and would not have been able to conceive when she was 26.
You can criticize her choices, sure, but to lay this at the feet of modern feminism is a stretch. She wants a baby, and instead got cancer. Sometimes bad things just happen.
Very brave thing to write Jill and I agree with you. But the feminists will bash it because its not what they want to hear even though science proves otherwise.
I have a feminist family member who put career above all else. Now she is approaching the end of her 30’s and realizing that she never gave any time to finding Mr. Right. Marriage may not be in the picture (although there is still time for that) but children being in the picture is looking more and more unlikely with every year that passes. And the career she worked so hard to build she confided to me she HATES. She wondered if her priorities had been all wrong and all her sacrifice was in vain?
I like Giulianna Rancic and her husband and wish Giulianna health and yes, fertility. I hope she abandons dangerous IVF to go the natural route and figure out WHY her body is not letting her conceive.
Jill, I too usually agree with you. But I think you could have made the same points without making this personal towards Giuliana. Your truths won’t win anyone over when it looks like you are exploiting Giuliana’s difficult situation to make a point.
im with sydney on this one and i watched their show for a while. ive never hear julianna admit to an abortion. she said she is “to skinny” according to her doctor to become preggo. i have also heard that being near anorexic can harm your ability to conceive. but id bet that she did take birth control so as not to get pregnant while on tv.
At present, the Rancics are focusing on the wrong message: diagnosis, not prevention…
(*sigh*) That’s lamentably true. I think it was my wife who first said (to me) that our culture is enamoured of making better and better ambulances to wait at the bottom of the cliff, but are lack-luster (and even resistant) toward building better guard-rails at the top of the cliff in the first place! It reminds me of “Magic” Johnson’s great-but-completely-squandered opportunity, when he went public with his HIV+ diagnosis, to hawk so-called “safe sex” rather than self-restraint and chastity.
Sydney wrote:
I like Giulianna Rancic and her husband and wish Giulianna health and yes, fertility. I hope she abandons dangerous IVF to go the natural route and figure out WHY her body is not letting her conceive.
VERY well said! Bravo! (Creighton University has some excellent research and resources on that point, BTW.)
oops agree with sydney as far as many women i know totally hate their careers!!!!!!! even careers theyve aborted for
I’ve only watched their reality show one time and it happened to be when they were first dealing with thier infertility. The couple were out to dinner with some friends when Giulianna proclaims “You do everything your whole life to prevent getting pregnant and then when you want to you can’t.” Obviously this “big Catholic Italian wedding” couple did use birth control extensively before and during their marriage. When will people realize the wisdom of the Church and how pro-women it truly is.
Guilianna and Bill are true victims and I hope someday they realize it and educate people.
Nellie Gray of March for Life fame is single and childless. Should her lifestyle be criticized?
Has she had breast cancer? If she gets it, will you write a column telling her she ought to have married and had kids?
I normally agree with you but I thought this article was WAY out of line. There were many assumptions in this article with no proof. I for one cannot have children. NO my infertility was not caused by my desire to have a career first and in fact I am now a stay at home adoptive mother. I also tried infertility treatments before the extent of my problem was known. In actual I have polycystic ovaries and my husband has a genetic disorder with no SPERM. I also have a genetic disorder that I did not want to pass along and would have shortened my life span if I had conceived. We opted not to use sperm donation as we felt God leading us to adoption. Are you actually implying I deserve to get breast cancer because of my current health problems? That I deserve it because out of my desperation for a child I took fertility drugs? YOu have condemned this woman for not wanting children then turned and condemned her for trying desperatly to have them. Before you say that you were not refering to me but to Guilianna Rancic, ask yourself how you can be sure that her infertility is not caused by another health condition? Do you have her medical records? Do you have proof of an attempted abortion? Write an article linking breast cancer and abortion. I’m all for that. I’m 100%pro life. I know what a miracle it is for conception to occur. But I will NOT stand for you to sit here and bash the infertile world!
Christina,
I only have a moment, but: could you please tell me anywhere, in Jill’s article, where she claims that Mrs. Rancic “deserved” breast cancer, or any other evil?
I remember when Giuliana was profiled here a few months ago because she was going through another round of IVF and all I could think was how she was playing Russian roulette with her health. I know that delayed childbirth, birth control pills, and abortion are all significant risk factors for cancer, but fertility drugs are very potent and I am sure that is what brought it on at this time.
The fertility industry is an absolute scandal. It is completely unregulated and the drugs are not FDA approved. That doctor’s claims that these drugs only accelerate cancer is absurd. As I predicted when I commented in a thread here last week, the medical establishment will deny any link between fertility drugs and cancer. This is a billion dollar industry and they just want to grow it more and more. They know that if the truth gets out about these fertility drugs/procedures then their business will be curtailed.
Prevention AND Diagnostic are BOTH IMPORTANT!
The Pill is a level 1 carcinogen. There are also environmental factors that need to be taken into consideration.
I hope her treatments go well. Perhaps she and her husband can adopt a child that’s in foster care, if she is able to get through this.
its disturbing when more and more women are being diagnosed at earlier ages!
I think women also need to be told that being on the pill for prolonged periods of time can permanently thin the lining of your uterus so that when you go off the pill and want to conceive, you can’t. That happened to a co-worker of mine. The doctor didn’t want to admit that it was the pill but did finally say her being on the pill for 12 years could have been a factor to why she could no longer grow a thick uterine lining suitable for implantation.
He said the pill was never designed for “long term use”. REALLY? Do women know this? Are we being told this?????
Jill was not bashing people who cannot conceive because of physical issues, and she was not bashing this celebrity. I believe she was using a well known circumstance, which happens way too often, to make the point the feminism is destroying these women’s lives, not enhancing them. Please everyone don’t take everything so personally.
Hi,
So I’m a pro-life (as in work for a crisis pregnancy center) conservative Christian and I have to say I believe you have had a serious lapse in judgement with many things in this post. While being a public figure does open one up to a bit more criticism (also considering they have their own reality show) I think it is reprehensible that you suggest she may have had an abortion. How would you feel if someone publicly suggested that about you if were dealing with infertility and breast cancer. I think it would have been the kind and gentle and loving thing to offer how there have been many women in a similar situation and then outline the multitude of causes without bringing her name up multiple times. I think it is important for people to know the potential for all these fertility prevention and acceleration measures to mess with them hormonally, as well as delaying childbirth’s connection with the disease.
I think we should applaud her for at least getting married before trying to have kids. And for valuing children. Maybe she wanted to get married and have kids ten years ago and there were no good candidates. After all, she does work in hollywood and I know I would have trouble finding a fish I liked in that sea.
Paladin, TO me the whole article implied that she deserved it starting with the title. When I first read the title and clicked to read the link I expected so see an article citing the numerous abortions this woman had that led to her breast cancer. Instead I read she’s infertile. Obviously no one who has commented has every experienced the pain of infertility. It is a deeply personal and painful condition that should not be discussed in conjuction to breast cancer awareness. I know nothing about this celebrity and am not a fan. No she wasn’t bashing people with a medical condition exactly but how does she know this celebrity doesn’t have a medical condition unrelated to her waiting to have children? Maybe not bashing but definitly judging. I’m also on birth control for life dispite how desperately I would want to concieve. It’s to regulate my hormones and I’m told not regulating them would put me at risk for ovarian cancer. In one sentence she says pregnancy reduces cancer risks and the next she says she shouldn’t have tried to get pregnant.
“Had Giuliana followed her biological clock and the natural path of life women walked before the introduction of liberal feminism, she would have remained a virgin until marrying at a much younger age and had children younger, likely avoiding infertility and breast cancer altogether.”
No. Just NO. Everything about this post is wrong and smug. I cannot agree with anything about this post. It’s mean-spirited and judgmental. I may not agree with Giuliana, but by golly, she seems like a really nice, hardworking, sweet-natured person. Let’s focus on saving babies, shall we? Please?
Saying you need to diagnose the problem sooner is akin to saying you want to point a sinking ship in the right direction….
Of course no one in the business wants to explain how the ships begin to sink in the first place.
They don’t have the fortitude and integrity to go there.
Christina,
I don’t see it that way; making a statement that “liberal feminism” (i.e. demands for access to hormonal contraception, IVF, and other reckless avenues, all in the name of “greater ‘freedom’ [so-called]”) contributed to her condition. She admittedly availed herself of IVF, which is offered as a sort of “holy grail” for infertile couples, but which does violence to everyone involved (long story… check out prior discussions on this topic on this blog, for details)… and she increased her breast cancer risk, thereby. I really don’t see how this means that she “deserved” breast cancer, any more than a woman deceived into procuring an abortion “deserves” breast cancer. The woman was sold a bill of goods (i.e. she was given a sweet-sounding lie), and she suffered because of that lie. Can’t you see how that explanation is at least possible (rather than accusing Jill of “thinking that the woman deserved what she got”)?
I’m also on birth control for life dispite how desperately I would want to concieve. It’s to regulate my hormones and I’m told not regulating them would put me at risk for ovarian cancer.
(*sigh*) I truly regret that your doctor said that… because it’s flatly untrue. If you’d like an alternative, check out the (forgive the title) Pope Paul VI Institute for Reproductive Health (http://www.popepaulvi.com/) for more information; hormonal contraception merely masks the symptoms of a deeper disorder, and its widespread prescription, blithely issued by harried doctors, is a modern horror. Please check into alternatives; your doctor (perhaps innocently) has prescribed an unnecessary and dangerous course of action for you!
Christina,
Jill can speak for herself, but my take on her point is this: the liberal feminist mantra for decades now has been that women can both have it all and not have anything they don’t want all at the same time. That a woman’s “choices” are all good and can only be good for her.
They’ve pushed hormonal birth control as they answer to a woman’s every problem, and abortion as the ultimate freedom from the “burden” of pregnancy. Yet they never, ever acknowledge the damage artificial hormones do to a woman’s body, nor the damage wrought by abortion. They refuse to admit there could be something dangerous for women about all these “choices.” They turn a blind eye to medical facts and science, for the sake of promoting “reproductive freedom.” If they truly, truly cared about women and women’s health, they could not continue to push artificial hormones and pills and abortion and IVF the way they do.
I understand that infertility is a painful cross to bear, but it’s simply a fact that pumping a woman full of hormones was never what God intended, and it can very often result in harm to the woman. But liberal feminism is not interested in facts or science or logic or reason: their only interest is in abortion-on-demand and sex without consequences and babies manufactured however the woman chooses (just sperm, thank you, no father required).
None of that is good for women. It’s certainly not good for children.
Also Christina, I’d encourage you to check this site for more accurate information on treating a woman’s gynecological health issues. Artificial hormones are NOT the answer.
http://www.naprotechnology.com/
Jill,
I agree with all that you’ve written and the blame for the rise in breast cancer overall can certainly be laid very squarely on liberal feminism and the artificial control over your fertility that it promises. But I don’t think you can point to an individual and say something caused her breast cancer. I would love to see her use her platform to discuss that these things might have increased her risk. But she might have done everything right in terms of avoiding risk factors and received the same diagnosis.
Christina,
No one deserves to get breast cancer, but we can certainly have an honest discussion about risky behaviors, undertaken in desperation or not, that can increase your risk.
Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a breast surgeon in New Jersey and co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. Her years of medical practice have shown her the science cannot be disputed. Induced abortions greatly increase a woman’s risk of getting breast cancer, as do hormonal contraceptives. Needless to say, she is not very populat with OB-GYNs. But women need to hear this information.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y41A6KCi944&feature=player_embedded
I think Jill’s point in that since Rancic is a tv personality who wishes to use her celebrity for advocacy, she needs to do a better job of it. That’s what Jill is criticizing – Rancic’s strategy. And that’s fair.
We’re hit over the head with “awareness.” And prevention campaigns look more like diagnosis campaigns.
I’ll certainly be paying more attention to what celebrities say now that Jill has made a great point. If you’re going to save lives, it’s just as important to teach people how to prevent it.
Liberal feminism can kill you.
Sorry… I missed these bits of your comment, in my last post! Christina wrote:
Instead I read she’s infertile. Obviously no one who has commented has every experienced the pain of infertility. It is a deeply personal and painful condition that should not be discussed in conjuction to breast cancer awareness.
Well… I have to disagree, here. My wife and I are infertile, and yet we’re both vehement advocates of avenues which AVOID the use of artificial contraceptives, IVF (which kills many more babies than it “produces”, and it turns the rest into little more than mail-order commodities), and the like. We oppose them, not because of mere “personal preference” or “personal taste” (e.g. “well, it’s just not for us”–akin to someone saying that they simply don’t care for fish and chips), but because they are inherently dangerous, physically (easily demonstrated) and morally (also demonstrable, but it takes longer).
In one sentence she says pregnancy reduces cancer risks and the next she says she shouldn’t have tried to get pregnant.
But… surely you noticed that the WAYS she attempted to become pregnant are important? There’s no contradiction or inconsistency in Jill’s position; all other things being equal, pregnancy certainly does have a demonstrable protective effect against certain types of cancers in women, but it doesn’t follow that any and every METHOD for trying to attain pregnancy (e.g. by means of IVF and/or fertility drugs (and Mrs. Rancic used BOTH!), which disrupt the reproductive system and/or expose one to carcinogens by definition) would be equally good, or equally safe! Does that clarify, a bit? No one is trying to condemn her; what we seek to do is condemn the lies and the apparati which deceived her into: (a) delaying child-birth until a much less safe age (for reasons of career advancement, etc.), (b) using invasive and dangerous methods for attempting to get pregnant, and (c) being a public advocate for most of the wrong things, in all this, rather than being an advocate for prevention of a rather preventable risk-factor in teh first place!
Wow. Christina, I wanted a child for years and for reasons other than physical was not allowed to conceive. But I know that longing for a child. I feel deeply for your pain and hurt. Its a deep ache. I’ve felt it. However, I do not think Jill was attacking infertile people at all. Maybe it felt that way to you but I did not get that from this post at all.
Faith, Jill never said that Giulianna had an abortion. She asked HAS she? Many celebrities have. Many women have! It does raise the risk of breast cancer. You want to save lives right? Shouldn’t we be talking about how hormonal contraceptives and abortion and IVF increase the risk of these dear ladies dying from a terrible, painful disease? That isn’t be judgmental. Its time to stop being so sensitive. We need to speak the truth even if it makes others uncomfortable.
Had Giuliana followed her biological clock and the natural path of life women walked before the introduction of liberal feminism, she would have remained a virgin until marrying at a much younger age and had children younger, likely avoiding infertility and breast cancer altogether.
If I use the profanity in my mind, my comment will be deleted. But all of this infuriates me to the pit of my SOUL.
A couple of points:
1. It’s not hard to marry at any age. Most people do it and half of them do it WRONG and end up divorced. Some refuse to just settle down with just anyone and as such, marry later than the “natural path of life.” There is nothing wrong or immoral about not finding your partner by your mid-20’s and couples that marry later are also less likely to divorce. I am glad I didn’t follow the “natural path of life” like everyone in high school who all married by 22 and have divorced at least once by now.
2. The accusation that women who marry later in life made a conscious choice to choose career over family is hurtful. Did St. Gianna who married at 32 and died saving her youngest child choose career over family? She simply didn’t meet her husband until she was 31, in part because God’s plan for her involved being a doctor, something she had to accomplish before kids if she were to accomplish it at all. She didn’t choose that, God chose it for her. But no, she’s a liberal feminist! As am I, apparently, because I am one of the lucky ones for whom God’s plan doesn’t conform to the norm.
3. Women who have successful careers and marry later and even more harshly judged as having poor priorities- because instead of becoming doctors and lawyers, we should have spent our single years searching for a man, right? Our having successful careers just fuels your accusations that we picked career over family. Some women might- but I didn’t, although I am glad God’s plan involved this mission and He arranged it where I don’t feel like I must choose between what I know I’m called to do in the world and my family. Indeed, I am better equipped for motherhood now than if I followed the “natural path of life” -because I didn’t end up married right out of college, I am able to accomplish other things that allow me to work as little as I want on my own schedule, around school plays, soccer games and the like. But I am such a liberal feminist for not just settling down with my college boyfriend at 22 and being forced to work a typical 9 to 5, missing so much of my kid’s lives. While marrying at 22 would have save me this undue scorn, I will take the scorn in exchange for the wonderful life I now live.
4. Remaining a virgin until marriage does not require marrying young. This is a lie that women have no self-control and have to marry because they can’t possibly hold out past their mid-20’s. I am 31 and I can rattle off former boyfriends who are older than me, still unmarried and still virgins. My college boyfriend of 3 years is 38 now. Still a virgin- and still smoking hot. :)
5. Infertility affects women of every age, even those who did nothing wrong. PCOS, ednometriosis, low sperm count/motility. Infertility is an injustice, especially since getting pregnant is not an “accomplishment”- teenagers do it all the time. Most get pregnant unintentionally. Many of the commenters here married young- Lauren and Bethany and they have struggled with infertility at times.
Haters gon’ hate, which is why I just enjoy my life as God designed it and hope that my happiness and fruitfulness gives the haters the middle finger I am not permitted to give them.
Instead I read she’s infertile. Obviously no one who has commented has every experienced the pain of infertility. It is a deeply personal and painful condition that should not be discussed in conjuction to breast cancer awareness.
My husband and I are infertile also. We too are against the use of IVF due to the destruction and commodification of embryonic life. But even if one discounts the loss of life, the risks to the long term health of the mother are absolutely fair game for discussion. The fact that they aren’t shows you that politics drives this discussion, not science.
Jacqueline – Amen. Seriously. That’s exactly what I didn’t like about the post, but I couldn’t put my finger on it.
I know Jill was trying to address the liberal feminist gospel of hormonal contraception and fertility treatments, and I agree with that. But there’s so much wrapped up in this post that isn’t necessarily tied to that like being called to a single life, or finding a spouse later. All the things you mentioned.
Jacqueline, I wish I could “love” your comment, rather than just like it.
My husband and I lead a small group for young adults. In it are several young unmarried women who are in their mid- to late-twenties. Every single one of them is trying to do what God has called them to do for now, and up to this point, He has not led them to the men meant to be their husbands, though all of them desire marriage and family. They’re just not willing to hunt the bar scene or an online dating site. Believe me, they struggle with waiting on God, because all they hear from the world (and the church, frankly) is, “Go out and find a man!”
None of them are liberal feminists. It is increasingly difficult to find the right, Godly young man with whom a Godly young woman would wish to build a life and family.
I’m not saying Guiliana is in this boat or ever was, because I don’t know. But I know many young women who would LOVE to marry and have children – they’re just not willing to settle for the first guy that comes along who’s interested. My hat is off to the young, single woman who waits on God for the right man at the right time, or, if God wills it, to remain single. It is unfortunate that the risk of breast cancer is increased for the childless because so many infertile couples are dealt a double blow in this regard.
I agree that IVF and fertility treatments are risk factors, as well as age, and women should be made fully aware of this. But there are truly no guarantees that ANY woman could simply find Mr. Right as early as she’d like.
CT & Len,
Thanks, y’all. I am glad you appreciate it, because for my productivity, mental and emotional health, it will be the last contribution to this blog that I ever make.
Between the slanderous gossip of the Priests for Life situation (encouraged by biased posts and now there is a POLL about it), one commenter finding me on Facebook simply to say mean things, and the sheer futility of commenting when I have so much else constructive to do, I think it’s best that I retire from this altogether.
Nothing but love, y’all.
Jacqueline, I stand by your post. You got my support too. Thank you for stating what I was not able to because I am fighting a horrific cold.
I have no problem with liberal feminism. I come from a long line of liberal feminists–who were all pro-life. The women in my family became lawyers, professors, whatever they put their minds to do. They believed in equality for women, and they fought for rights that I take for granted. If it weren’t for liberal feminism, we would still need a husband’s or father’s signature to open a bank account, we wouldn’t be able to vote….things in this world would be a LOT grimmer without liberal feminism.
Liberal feminism, however, makes the mistake of touting abortion as part of these rights. It’s not. Abortion somehow got mixed up in all the other, very necessary, demands that liberal feminism brought to light. It is an issue that is underexamined, and misunderstood, and misrepresented time and time again. But I am a liberal feminist, in every other way.
I married at 28 and didn’t have my 1st child until I was almost 31. Luckily, all my husband and I have to do to get pregnant is wash our clothes together.
Maybe the vibe I got from this post is because all the liberal feminists I know think I’m stupid for WANTING to be a wife and stay at home mom and are avowed men haters.
I think our life experiences definitely color the way we read this particular post.
My hat is off to all the ladies staying pure and waiting till the right man comes along! That is not easy and I respect that. I do not think jumping into marriage is ever the wisest choice. So I agree with the points you’re trying to make.
What exactly are women supposed to take away from this realization?
You have a higher chance of developing breast cancer if you wait until you are older to have kids? Except older in this situation is 20 not 30 or 40. If you wait till after 20 your risk of breast cancer increases. So what more teen pregnancy and marriage?
An 18 year old girl who immediately wants to get married and pregnant and has no interest in a career isnt going to attract a husband at least not a good one!!
Furthermore when did careers become such horrible things. Most women have jobs and not just to pay for their abortions and plastic surgery but their mortgages and food. If you know you have to work for 50 years, it makes sense to pick something good and put some effort into it!
Maybe the vibe I got from this post is because all the liberal feminists I know think I’m stupid for WANTING to be a wife and stay at home mom and are avowed men haters.
As women, you are d#mned if you do and d#mned if you don’t. You are judged no matter what. You are judged for marrying too young, marrying too old, having kids too soon, not having kids at all, having too many kids, having too few kids, having kids too close together, having kids too far apart, working outside the home, not working outside the homel, etc. You just can’t win- I know this, and I still hate being judged.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Responding to people who judge you for your choice to focus exclusively on family by judging them right back isn’t a correct response- I say we just let them be wrong and not contribute to it by firing back, whether we are the career women being judged or the stay-at-home mom being judged.
What’s most disgusting about this post are the assumptions about a woman’s state of mind and her activities, what Rancic ”may” have done. These charges are levied all the time: a woman who marries late must have put her career first, she must be a non-virgin who contracepted or aborted, she must have used birth control in her marriage. I don’t present myself as the “norm” (quite proudly), but I am guilty of none of the above, but people accuse me of these things all the time. Satan is called “the accuser” for a reason.
Okay, that’s it. I promise.
Jacqueline, great comments! Sorry to see you go – temporarily or permanently. I can probably find you on Facebook via mutual friends – ok if I do that?
I can help you hook up if y’all need it.
Hey Courtnay,
I was married at 28 and had my first at 31. Huh. :)
Jacqueline – I am so sad to see you go. Your comments were always great, but I’ve had to cut back a lot too b/c it is a productivity drain! Best of luck!
I feel like my anger over the original article and the susequent comments made it hard for me to focus on my post and to adequately communicate my opinions. That being said I stand by my beliefs. I am against abortion but I am not against birthcontrol or IVF (if used in a responsible manner). Do I think stricter regulations on Ivf need to be in place? Yes, but I think a compromise can be made so that if couples choose this route to concieve then it will be available to them. I personally know several devoted christians who chose to persue infertility treatments and ultimately conceived. I consider each of these children to be a direct gift from God and a prayer answered. Certainly a stranger on the internet is not going to convince me differently. Not when I will be looking into the eyes of these children later at children’s choir and seeing their beauty.
In my opinion the article implies a direct correlation between waiting to attempt conception and breast cancer. To agree with this we would first need to assume that the infertility treatments caused her cancer and then agree that the infertility was caused by the life style choice in waiting. In regards to the first, while I agree infertility treatments do increase your risk of cancer, I do not see how we can determine a direct cause and effect. Not when we do not know other information. For example does breast cancer run in her family? Was she exposed to second hand smoke? Did she grow up next to an environmental risk? Lots of things cause cancer. It’s not right to latch on to the one point that promotes your cause but not to consider other factors. Second how can we assume that she chose to wait. Maybe she wanted to get married younger but did not meet the right man. I commend her for waiting and for not getting pregnant out of wedlock. How can we know for sure that the waiting caused the infertility? Lots of conditions cause infertility at any age. In writing this article it promotes the idea that infertile couples are to be blamed for their infertility. Lots of people believe this and it hurts my heart to see this prejudice encouraged. In fact, I have heard of woman who would choose abortion over adoption because after all ”if someone can’t have children then that’s their own fault why should I have them for them”
Infertility is not a life style choice. Someone who is diabetic but eats candy bars daily, that’s a life style choice. An alcoholic with liver disease, thats a life style choice. A long time smoker with lung cancer, that’s a life style choice. Someone who is infertile because of multiple abortions, that’s a life style choice. Infertile because of a genetic condition, medical condition, or not finding the perfect husband out of high school. That’s God.
I’m all for education. So if we are going to talk about what causes breast cancer GREAT! But lets talk about ALL the risks and causes and not just the ones that promote our agenda. Most couples undergoing infertility treatments already know they are harming their health. It’s their responsibilty to read the warning label and to do their research. It’s not Giuliana Rancic responsibility to warn them. Most choose the risk and feel the benefits are worth it. That’s their choice. Same with birthcontrol and all medicines. Even tylenol causes liver disease. It’s up to each of us individually to do our research and to determine if the risk of the medication outweighs the benefit or vice versa. Would you suggest to a diabetic to stop taking their insulin? Herbal or natural remedies are not always the answer. I have to be very careful about what I put into my mouth and there are a lot of natural things that increase heart rate or thin your blood. All things that would be very dangerous for my health. Pot is organic but when I’m in pain I choose to stick with tylenol even with the risk to my liver. For me, I believe I will stick to the opinion of the three doctors with their medical degrees who all agreed that birth control was my best option. Not ideal or perfect but best. Without going into great detail No, it’s not hiding an underlying cause that I’m not already aware of. The only time I would disagree with anything I have already written is when it applies to someone who is pregnant. That’s when I think laws should be made to protect the innocent life above all else.
What exactly does this article accomplish or want accomplished In regards to the point that having children younger reduces the risk of breast cancer? As many posters have already commented sometimes that’s just out of a person’s control. In fact the human brain is not fully developed until the age of 23. Which is scary to me because I got married at the age of 22. Now knowing what I know, I would not encourage anyone to marry before 23. Are any of you really saying that you would encourage your daughter to marry and have children before she was ready in order to slightly decrease her risk of breast cancer? That’s just irresponsible to me. A perfect example of risk not outweighing the benefit. I absolutely can NOT promote having babies before the age of 20.
All in all, I thought I was prolife but now I am definitly questioning what I have gotten myself into and the people I am associating with. I trully believe birthcontrol reduces abortion. I’m trully sorry I cannot follow the same path that is being promoted on this site. I have read several comments that I agree with so I am not trying to bash everyone here. I am saying I cannot agree with everyone here so I will be removing myself from this and looking for something that better follows my beliefs and my heart. God bless to all.
Christina,
You’re definitely free to post or not, come or go (and come back) as you please, as we all are! But I’d ask, at least, that you prayerfully *consider* the possibility that IVF isn’t the “wonder help” that it claims to be. With every attempt, “extra embryos” (i.e. tiny children) are “created”, “culled” to see which are considered “strongest”, and then those are implanted (with a high fatality rate, even for them). The other children, left in the Eppendorf tube? They’re either flushed down the drain (i.e. killed directly), or they’re frozen (a human being, frozen for hoped-for “thawing”… another high-fatality process), or they’re torn apart for “embryonic stem-cell research”. With every single IVF process/attempt, many children die, as a matter of course. This, friend, is not pro-life. This is pro-death… and virtually no one in the public scene talks about this (or even knows about it–I know that *I* was horrified when I found out about it!).
As for hormonal contraception: you might read the warning label included in the package; women have died from them (and not simply from the rare anaphylaxis/allergic reactions), and the dangerous side-effects are legion. These are not mere vitamins, despite the fact that they’re given out as freely as are vitamins.
Please, I beg of you: look at these things carefully, prayerfully, and rationally. It’s not for no reason, or for mere personal opinion, that many of us warn against these things!
Like some other posters I too am deeply troubled by the assumptions being made. There is so much here I can’t begin to cover it all.
Exactly what do we know of Giulianna’s gynecological history? Only what she wants to tell us.
My great grandmother had nine children, nursed them all,….and died of breast cancer. Wasn’t supposed to happen as she did everything “right” to prevent it.
Come on folks, reproduction is so complicated, defies the odds time and again, and does not follow anyone’s rules. Infertility cannot always be explained, sometimes fertility can’t either. Women who did everything “right” don’t reproduce, women who have been sexually promiscuous and infected time and again and done everything “wrong” become pregnant. Haven’t you often wondered why certain women, usually the most unfit, physically, morally, and socially, can produce children?
Fertility issues are as old as the human race. In earlier times and in some modern day cultures, girls are married off at puberty and expected to reproduce ASAP. If they don’t by the time they’re in their twenties, they are considered past their prime. Women Giulianna’s age are usually grandmothers many times over, assuming they even survived.
The same is true with cancer. Yes Giulianna may have been in a higher risk category but do we know what caused her cancer? We can only speculate and assume. Cancer doesn’t follow anyone’s rules. Why is it people who do everything “right” die of cancer and people who do everything “wrong” die of old age?
Giulianna’s situation is tragic enough without a lot of armchair analysts assuming and speculating. Time and again people do this, and only cause more anguish and guilt for people like Giulianna.
I’m tired of this line of reasoning. What the stink is the solution? Is the message that, to decrease the risks a few percentage points, people should pregnant even if they aren’t financially ready, or not married, to lesson the risk?
it is just bizarre.
A further point. What do any of us know of Giulianna’s life, then or now? We see the woman on TV, she gives us bits and pieces of her life, and we can sit in our armchairs and say this caused her cancer, that caused her infertility, etc? How do we “know” she could have gotten pregnant 10 or 15 years ago? If not for TV, none of us would know this woman if we fell over her.
My great grandmother had nine children, nursed them all,….and died of breast cancer. Wasn’t supposed to happen as she did everything “right” to prevent it.
Exactly. I have mentioned this here before but my mother had liver cancer. I stayed home and went to community college to help her get through it. One of the worst things was the assumptions people made – so many people assumed she was an alcoholic, or a heavy drinker! I’d have people asking me if I ever worried about the beer in my hand, given my family’s history of problems with alcohol! In reality, my mom had MAYBE two drinks a month for basically her whole life. The lightest drinker I know, aside from people who just don’t drink at all.
It was hard enough having to go through the ordeal of cancer with my mother – having it be “shameful” because of assumptions was really the icing on the cake. I would have been really offended if someone had been like, “Well, let’s use this example to learn from. Was she a heavy drinker? Maybe she was, we don’t know, but that can increase your risk dramatically. Did she have hepatitis B or C? MAYBE. If she did, did she contract these diseases through irresponsible behavior? MAYBE!”
I’d go through fertility treatments even if it did raise my risk of breast cancer. I’d rather deal with a treatable disease at 40 than die alone at 80.
“the natural path of life women walked ….. she would have remained a virgin until marrying” – do you really believe this? I don’t think history bears this out.
“she would have remained a virgin until marrying …..likely avoiding infertility and breast cancer altogether.” – non-marital sex causes breast cancer?!?
Reality,
I for once must agree with you. She would have remained a virgin until marriage? In the long course of human history, children and teenagers were not enslaved and raped? Married men didn’t visit whore houses where children and teenage girls worked? Whores didn’t have children? There was no child marriage? We read time and again of the “infertility” of women in the Bible. Women didn’t die of breast cancer? Likely they didn’t live long enough to develop cancer, or as in the case of my great grandmother, polite people did not discuss “female” cancers.
Christina, if you really are pro-life you will be pro-life whether you like other pro-lifers are not. I have disagreed with others on this site before over various things but even when I felt strongly about my disagreement with them I never questioned my belief that life begins at conception and that we should not be killing the unborn.
Either you believe that too or you don’t. Stop using the fact that others on this site disagree with you as an excuse.
I am definitely pro-life and I am definitely pro-family planning (NOt ABORTIFACIENT). I know you can be both.
Carla, motherhood in my 30s was perfect! what say?
You misunderstand. I did not mean to imply I was for killing the unborn. Just that I do not belong among this group or among people who are against birthcontrol. How am I using it as an exuse? An excuse for what?
Hi Alexandra,
Its always good to see you here. I hope all is well.
How tragic about your mother, yet another example of how people “know” what in fact they only assume and speculate on. And how by their assumptions they only add to the anguish of people already suffering.
I had a very shameful moment when I assumed a patient suffered terminal cirrhosis because of alcohol and drug abuse. In fact, the woman had Hepatitis C, and had never touched drugs and rarely drank. She certainly had not brought this on herself as I assumed she had.
Its a moment that has remained with me for a lifetime and I warn people time again against assuming anything. There’s a reason why “assume” means you make an “a$$” out of “u” and “me”.
Courtnay,
I enjoyed it so much I continued into my 40’s!! :)
Alas, not for me. The 8 year old, however, is worth 6 children by himself. :0
Christina, you said you were questioning whether you were pro-life because of the people here.
I am also not against birth control. The pro-lifers on this site don’t agree on every single topic. We all agree life starts at conception and killing that life is wrong.
I am against hormonal birth control because I learned it can cause an early abortion. But I myself use barrier birth control with my husband and I don’t think thats immoral. There are others here who disagree with me and I’m okay with that.
It is to encourage her to research breast cancer and to use her experience and platform to educate women.
I love that you interpret Ms. Rancic’s failure to promote teen pregnancy as evidence that she has not researched her illness.
Again, diagnosing breast cancer is certainly important, but more important is preventing it.
Well, a prophylactic double mastectomy also helps prevent cancer. Do you think it’s important that all women get one, or just the selfish hags who delay motherhood until they’re at least 21?
In any event, I look forward to your column urging Bristol Palin to start doing the responsible thing by advising young girls to follow her example rather than avoid it. Because after all, she is currently using her celebrity to encourage girls to raise their breast cancer risk, isn’t she?
or as in the case of my great grandmother, polite people did not discuss “female” cancers.
Breast cancer used to be known primarily as an older woman’s disease as it was extremely rare in young women, There has been a significant increase in reproductive cancers in women of all ages in the last 50 years. There is much research linking the increase to delayed pregnancy, abortion, oral contraceptives, and fertility drugs. There is a lot of money and politics surrounding these issues and believe me there is a conspiracy to keep the truth from the wider public. For instance, in 1957 a Japanese study found abortion as a significant risk factor for breast cancer and since then the majority of studies have found the same thing, but yet the risk is not known to most women because the medical community is in cahoots with the abortion industry. Also, remember HRT was causing cancer in older women? Well it contained the same carcinogens as oral contraceptives and fertility drugs. And yet the medical community is always reassuring us that there is no link between oral contraceptives and fertility drugs and cancer.
Giuliana is a woman who admits that she was in her third round of IVF when she discovered tumors in both breasts. This is a very serious disease which rarely affected women her age before the “sexual revolution”. She has been pumping these poisons into her body for the last couple of years and we are supposed to think that there is no correlation??? This issue is not about judging individual women and this is not about speculation. The issue is about the medical industry using women to advance agendas and make money.
Hi Denise Maria,
While I understand your point we simply cannot assume we know what caused someone’s cancer.
In the course of my 40+ years in nursing, I have seen people who lived pristine lives develop cancer, and people who I couldn’t understand surviving to old age.
Sadly abortion is as old as the human race. Cancers were not always identified as such. Yes people ingest carcinogens….and die of old age.
My point is we can never assume to know about people’s lives, decisions, medical history, or what “caused” their particular illness. I’ve seen situation like Giulianna’s in women 10 to 15 years younger. I knew a woman with polycystic ovaries who had been told she could never become pregnant. She was also very promiscuous. In her late 30’s she was shocked to discover she had become pregnant, and two years later was pregnant again! She produced two perfectly healthy children.
As I said, human reproduction, as well as cancer, follows no one’s rules.
I said I was questioning the people that I was associating myself with. That was aimed primarily at Jill Stanek and in part with other posters. I’m glad to hear I’m not the only one prolife and pro birthcontrol but that was not the feeling I was getting earlier today. When I was feeling very attacked. As far as hormonal birthcontrol goes I’d rather see someone use that than nothing at all or abortion as contraceptive. On a personal level since my husband has no sperm we do not have to worry about miscarrying.
Also, I’m questioning prolife in regards to IVF or fertility treatments. Am I ok with someone implanting 8 then aborting 6? NO! But I do not think that all fertility options are evil or abortion. This was also something I was feeling very attacked about earllier.
Regardless of other posters. I still do not agree with Jill’s blog post today and no one has convinced me differently. By supporting her am I not saying I support everything she stands for? That is what I am questioning.
I truly regret this. I don’t think we all have to agree on everything to be prolife. In fact I think if we let some things go then we would be a better more unified front in getting laws changed. But again I got the feeling that this was not a welcome thought on this cite.
BTW,
I forgot to mention that the friend in my 8:55PM post was also a heavy smoker and most certainly enjoyed her liquor and some not so legal drugs.
BTW,
I forgot to mention that the friend in my 8:55PM post was also a heavy smoker and most certainly enjoyed her liquor and some not so legal drugs.
Mary, of course, you can be 36 and do everything “right” and still get breast cancer just like you can never smoke and still get lung cancer. However, when someone is pumped with potent carcinogens in three cycles of IVF and someone smokes a pack of cigarettes everyday, well, they are increasing their risk substantially. We can never be completely risk free no matter what we do. And some people will simply develop certain diseases for some reason that was impossible to control like genetics. But there is real research which links significant cancer risk to things like tobacco and the type of substances found in fertility drugs. Women get significantly more reproductive cancers than they use to and it is not a mystery to me as to why. These risks are not known to the wider public and the medical community wants to keep it that way. Don’t you think if every woman considering IVF or abortion were told up front about the risks with brutal honesty that most of them might just think twice? Do you really think that the abortion and fertility industries want to hurt their own business?
Hi Denise Maria,
My point is that we cannot say for certain what caused someone’s cancer. It seems like everything we put in our bodies these days is a carcinogen, yet people die of old age.
Is it the hormones causing the cancer? Possibly. Could it be what’s in the drinking water or food preservatives? Possibly.
Keep in mind these factors weren’t around in our great grandmother’s time. Also, people rarely died of old age. Infectious diseases, malnutrition, violence, epidemics, infections, trauma, etc. took a toll and dying of old age was not to be expected. In fact surviving childhood was often nothing short of miraculous. Mothers did not assume their children would live to adulthood. Also cancer could be misdiagnosed or simply go undetected, the person dying of “unknown causes” or “TB” of a certain organ or appendage.
I wonder how many “bleeding” women were undiagnosed uterine cancer or “fits” in fact brain cancer.
I should mention my great grandmother who died of breast cancer lost 5 of her 9 children, but was considered lucky as she had 4 children survive to adulthood. She lost one daughter in her early 20s to breast cancer. This was before hormonal contraception or food preservatives.
Also cancer could be misdiagnosed or simply go undetected, the person dying of “unknown causes” or TB
Yea, but the spike in reproductive cancers did not happen until the 1960’s. In the case of breast cancer, it was still considered an older woman’s disease until the pill was legalized in 1960. I doubt that there were many young women having their cancers misdiagnosed as TB in the 1940’s and 1950’s.
Denise Maria,
There may have been a spike, but the exact cause? Don’t forget more food preservatives, x-rays, chemicals, etc. were also being used. x-rays were at one time thought to be harmless and chest x-rays, to which breast tissue is especially vulnerable, were done for fun at the county fair. Let’s not forget genetics which is also thought to play a role. I’m not ruling out hormones, I’m only pointing out that we cannot say with certainty exactly what caused someone’s cancer. Like my great aunt, sometimes people were just stricken for reasons unknown.
I should mention that the mother of the singer Madonna died of breast cancer in 1963. A devout Catholic she did not use birth control and produced 5 to 6 children. However she was also an x-ray technician and back then there was not the concern with shielding from radiation.
Now did the x-rays cause Madonna Sr’s cancer? Possibly. It certainly wasn’t hormonal BC or not bearing children. Were there other factors? Possibly. Would she have been stricken with cancer no matter what? Possibly. Can we say for certainty what caused her cancer? No. Did having several children at a young age protect her? No.
Mary, there are other risk factors, including genetics. However, in the last 50 years, especially, women have been medicalized to no end. Compare how many x-rays a person gets in their lifetime to the sheer amount of cancer causing agents always being pushed on women. There is a world of research out there linking reproductive cancers to things like artificial hormones and abortion. There may be other risk factors in play, but I do believe that the evidence is there that these are the primary causes of the significant spike in reproductive cancers.
Hi Denise Maria,
I respect your point of view on this as we all look to research and draw our own conclusions. I can certainly believe that hormones and abortion may well increase the risks to women, but I am convinced there are any number of factors.
Since abortion has been with us since the human race began, why is there now the epidemic of reproductive cancers said to be associated with it? How do we know cancer has really increased or if there is just longevity and better diagnosis?
As I said Denise, we just can’t point to one factor. People will point to studies to “prove” there is not a connection. As I said, we all have to draw our own conclusions.
I for one am convinced that routine ultrasound of pregnant women is causing the epidemic of autism. I have read research supporting this. People think I’m full of it.
I’m sure there’s research that says I’m full of it. Fine. I remain convinced.
Christina, this site is about the exchange of ideas. We may disagree but you are welcome to express your viewpoint. Its okay if you disagree with Jill’s post. There are people of all incomes, races, religions etc… on this site. We don’t all agree 100%.
Stay and chat. It will be nice to have you.
I respect your point of view on this as we all look to research and draw our own conclusions.
Fair enough. :)
I for one am convinced that routine ultrasound of pregnant women is causing the epidemic of autism. I have read research supporting this. People think I’m full of it.
I’m sure there’s research that says I’m full of it. Fine. I remain convinced.
I agree with you 100% on this one! In fact, I was reading about it the other day. I was trying to understand if there was any reason to get pre-natal testing if abortion was not an option. It led me to a few studies showing a link and to me it just makes sense. How can exposing a tiny developing fetus to that much radiation not cause any harm?
One woman said that insurance companies in the 1980’s would only pay for an ultrasound if there was a known risk factor, but today all ultrasounds are covered in insurance plans. Women are now having multiple ultrasounds even though it is rare that anything can be done in utero. To me it is just another example of a reckless medical establishment causing more problems than they solve.
Wow… I’m not sure I’ve ever disagreed with any article on this website more than I did with this one. Other commenters have addressed the problems with it much more eloquently than I could, so let me just say this:
I am in my mid-20s. I am unmarried. I am a virgin. I would love to be married and have children, but I haven’t met any decent men– men I could build a life with, raise children with– who were interested. I just found out I have PCOS, and if I do get married, I may have a hard time bearing children. I have always wanted to be a mother, but in the meantime, I’ve gone to college and begun a career that allows me to have an impact on the world, to make a difference in people’s lives.
I know Jill didn’t mean this the way I took it. I know that. But when I read this article– already hurting, because I’m alone and I may always be alone– what I heard was this:
Someday, at the end of your selfish, career-infested life, if you die alone, eaten up with cancer… it will be YOUR FAULT.
There is no ionizing radiation with ultrasound. Ultrasound uses sound waves. Totally safe. Ultrasound is not x-ray or magnetic imaging. Probably won’t convince you its safe, but you should know there isn’t any radiation. Believe me because I am super cautious about mammograms (radiation) and radiation damage is cumulative. I won’t go through body scanners at airports and I am also one of those weirdos who distrusts vaccines and tries to limit my cell phone use. Ultrasound is totally totally safe!
There is no ionizing radiation with ultrasound. Ultrasound uses sound waves.
I only read a few articles about it, and wrongly remembered it as using radiation. Sorry. However, it was making the point that it did affect the cells of the developing fetus in some way. I will have to look more into it.
Do you remember where you read these articles? I would be interested in reading them if you remember…
I think Giuliana Rancic is doing many a service by speaking out and encouraging screening and early diagnosis.
It would be nice if any celebrity or charity or women’s health advocates would say loudly and clearly that most of the increased breast cancers that our real friends and family are suffering and dying from are caused by delaying childbearing. Young women should at least know this fact. The silence about it is just as dysfunctional as the bad old days when polite people didn’t talk about female cancers. The fact is teens do not know that delaying childbearing causes breast cancer. They should know and we should tell them, just like we had campaigns telling people that smoking causes cancer. Young women should know.
Do you remember where you read these articles? I would be interested in reading them if you remember…
Sydney, I found a few articles, but the system will not allow me to post the websites. Just google “Autism Ultrasound Connection” and you find plenty of articles and studies discussing the subject.
Remember that some women and some men have not “put off” having children, but simply haven’t met someone to marry and have children with yet.
I don’t think I have ever read a more judgmental, prying, and uncalled for article on this site. Good job, making us look like control freak sexists, like we always get accused of.
My goal by writing this post is not to condemn Rancic. It is to encourage her to research breast cancer and to use her experience and platform to educate women.
This is the millionth time we’ve heard about the importance of early detection. I agree with Jill that that is no longer good enough. It’s time to seriously discuss causes and prevention.
Sheesh. With friends like these, who needs trolls?
Denise and Sydney,
It is thought that the heat generated by the ultrasound may have some damaging neurological effects on the developing brain. Also the sound waves can sound like a freight train to the fetus and who knows what damage this can do to a developing nervous system. In my era, ultrasound was strictly for diagnosis. I was thought to have miscarried and ultrasound showed I had not. That was the only one I had in 3 pregnancies.
x-rays at one time were thought to be perfectly safe as well. The fact the medical profession says something is perfectly safe holds no water for me.
Hi Hans,
Yes we can discuss possible causes and prevention, but assuming we know why people contracted cancer is a bit of a stretch. As I have pointed out in previous posts, reproduction and cancer follow no one’s rules.
If not for TV, none of us would know Giulianna if we fell over her, yet we know enough about the woman’s medical, social, and personal history to make a judgment call as to why she has cancer?
It reminds me of the people who supposedly “knew” how the late actress Farrah Fawcett contracted anal cancer. I won’t elaborate but just say that I never reallized so many people were looking in her bedroom windows.
“one commenter finding me on Facebook simply to say mean things”
LOL. I found you right in my list of friends! and I said nothing mean. I wonder if I should post the profanity she used with me…
Great article Jill. My wife and I had our kids later on in our 30’s, but I take no offense. I do wish we had them earlier though. Never let political correctness and hysterics trump the truth.
I agree with everything that Jaqueline said. A very bizarre line of “reasoning” from Jill
hurtful and disgusting
As a prolifer, I am embarassed by this
This post is intended to be helpful to this woman, right. When my friend’s daughter was dying of cancer, the anonymous note she received telling her to ‘search her life for some unconfessed sin’ was intended to be helpful too. Trust me, it wasn’t. I’m not trying to be bombastic, but it seems to me that we’re making a lot of unfounded and unfair judgments and indulging in speculation (gossip) about this woman’s personal life and we don’t even know her. My great-grandmother married at 19 and had eleven kids–she still got breast cancer. Discussing causes and prevention is one thing, but we can’t presume to know why this woman got this illness. We don’t.
I agree Mary. They gave my mom x-rays as a kid (frequently) to check for TB. What they say is safe now they may find in the future wasn’t.
I always have an open mind when it comes to this stuff. I admit I don’t know everything. Thats why I am going to google it and read it myself.
Jennifer,
Horrid. Horrid. Horrid note that was written.
THAT makes me sick.
The fact the medical profession says something is perfectly safe holds no water for me.
Yes, I agree with this statement 100%.
When friends of the family’s son was murdered, they got similar messages as your friend’s daughter, Jennifer. From nasty neighbors? Nope: from members (and leadership) of their church. Who needs enemies with “friends” like that? When I hear such “prophetic pronouncements”, I have to wonder if these people have any clue Who God is and how He is (hint: GOOD!)…Jesus was the express image of God on Earth, and He said He came to give us life & life abundantly, and the ENEMY comes to kill, steal and destroy. I pains me when people credit my exceedingly good and holy God with every evil work of the devil.
John 10:10 is a very basic rule of thumb: if it looks like stealing, killing or destroying in your life, it’s not of God. Those that sputter, “B-b-b-b-but God sent fire and brimstone to smite people in the Old Testament!” need to understand God was dealing with spiritually-dead people under the Old Covenant, under the Law which those who have been made new creations in Christ are not under!
If the idea is to help others avoid the consequences of repeating the same mistakes, it is useful to look at what might have occasioned an inroad for the enemy to come & do his nasty best. That is NOT to say anyone “deserves” cancer or to be shot down in cold blood, etc. regardless of whether it’s just plain being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or ingesting hormones in ignorance, so on & so forth. Under the new covenant, we don’t get what we deserve, we get what Jesus deserves because He took our place. I thank God everyday for the enormity of His love towards me (us) in that regard and to anyone who remains confused about God’s goodness, I invite you to get to know The True Nature of God.
Hi Carla.
Horrid indeed. I only hope Giulianna knows nothing of what was written here concerning the “cause” of her problems as I am sure it would be every bit as devastating.
To the infuriated:
What makes one 37yo woman get breast cancer and another not, the luck of the draw?
What has made breast cancer spike in women in the last 30 years – particularly young women- nothing in particular, it just is what it is?
Do you not want to know the answers to these questions?
From the clips I’ve seen of Giuliana Rancic, she seems like a nice person. Her husband grew up near where I live and by all accounts of those who know him, he is a nice person.
My post was not saying they aren’t nice people.
My post was saying they’re in denial if they think the message they need to send from Guiliana’s experience is to get mammograms early.
Giuliana has a known risk factor for contracting breast cancer: no children by the age of 35. I was not condemning her or any other woman who has no kids by age 35 with this statement. It’s just a fact.
Giuliana has a known risk factor for exacerbating breast cancer: injections of fertility drugs/hormones/steroids for IVF. And the jury is out whether this is a cause, particularly if repeated, which she did.
In my post I was asking Giuliana to take these known risk factors and also consider whether she has used hormonal birth control, which is also a risk factor, and/or has had an abortion, another risk factor. What do these reproductive risk factors have in common? Estrogen, a Group I carcinogenic.
Giuliana needs also to ask herself whether she delayed marriage and kids for her career. If so, she needs to look at the feminism that sold her that bill of goods with a more critical eye. All women need to think about this, not just Giuliana. Women need to understand how all these factors have worked synergistically to dramatically increase the rate of breast cancer.
If Giuliana does research and concludes there is a there there, then she would do a better service to girls and women by educating them on those points, not merely on the point of getting mammograms earlier rather than later.
Those were the points of my post. Don’t put words in my mouth that I didn’t say. I refuse to bow to political correctness.
Jill, would you have written this same column if Nellie Gray had breast cancer?
She has never married or had children and might be what is called a “career woman.”
Denise, no. Apples to oranges. As I said, and I’ll repeat it again because I guess you’re not hearing me, Giuliana is 37. She has had 2 rounds of IVF. And I think it’s a good bet that she used contraceptives. I asked her to analyze that at any rate. Nellie hasn’t had IVF and I think it’s also safe to say she hasn’t purpsoefully delayed childbearing through contraceptives. She’s a rock solid Catholic on that point. In my mind she has the lifestyle comparable to a nun. And she’s about 90.
Denise, you’re failing to exercise judgment… to use common sense.
Wow Jill, you can point out Denise’s lack of judgment, but you can’t see yours?
You are playing the Glenn Beck game of journalism, throwing out baseless assumptions about people because “it seems likely”. “Just asking questions” isn’t refusing to bow to political correctness, it’s being rude and presumptuous. You have zero proof that Giuliana used contraceptives, had an abortion, or why or if she delayed marriage and children. You made assumptions about her. If you had focused this article on the dangers of IVF, yeah, she has publicly stated she used IVF. I would still find it rude, but it’s not a big deal. Throwing out a bunch of baseless assumptions about this woman is a different story, it’s crossing a line.
Not even to mention the sexism. There is no “natural path of life for women” anymore than there is one for men.
(*sigh*) Why do these types of controversies always seem to come up when I’m scurrying about, attending to dozens of articles of real-life busy-ness?
I see that Jill has already replied to most of the points I wanted to cover, anyway, but just to add my own imperfect opinion:
Nowhere do I see any condemnation of Giuliana Rancic or her husband; I did see a great deal of alarm spoken against WHAT THEY DID (and what they did not do). (Is it really such a lost art-form, to hear a criticism of a circumstance or action while not taking it as a condemnation of oneself as a human person?) To wit: this couple exposed themselves, quite freely (though perhaps ignorantly and innocently) to a host of carcinogenic factors which are not normally factors in the lives of those who avoid IVF (and need I repeat my comments about the multitudes of children who die, almost by DEFINITION, during the IVF process? The silence of the “infuriated pro-life IVF supporters” on that point is puzzling, to me) and hormonal contraceptives. That fact is beyond reasonable dispute. At worst, Jill’s article seems to be a criticism of the culture which “arm-twisted” Mr. and Mrs. Rancic into participating in such ill-advised, life-unfriendly practices, and which rail-roaded her (and other women) into choosing between marriage/child-birth at a biologically prudent age (no sane person can deny that female fertility peaks at an age much younger than the mid-30’s) and a “fulfilling career”.
At the risk of saying something woefully unpopular: our current culture (whose mores did not drop out of the sky on two stone tablets, written by God) has morphed into a society in which women are forced to choose between earlier (and more biologically safe/reliable) pregnancy and a career/study/what-have-you. The fact that willfully delayed pregnancy (i.e. choosing to have one’s first pregnancy later in life) is both more “dicey” in general (lower fertility, higher probability of birth defects and/or miscarriage, etc.) and a risk for increasing a woman’s probability of developing breast cancer is a fact, and it was not conjured up by evil patriarchs who wish to oppress women, deny them self-actualisation (whatever that means), fulfillment, and the like; it’s simply a fact, as hard and cold as the law of gravity. Alerting women (and others) to this fact (and related data) is an act of kindness and love, not of judgment and scorn! Bringing this matter into the public eye is not, and it cannot reasonably be called, an act of “judgment” on individuals who happen to run afoul of it.
In the name of all that is good and holy: may I beg you, on bended knees, not to accuse Jill (or me) of “judging”, “condemning” or “denigrating” those who happened to have their first child later in life, for whatever reason? Culpability [i.e. blame-worthiness] and warnings are two very different things, after all… one would not blame a young child for toddling over to a hot stove, even though one might yell and grab the child violently in order to save her! If nothing else: if I refuse to condemn women who have had an abortion [on the assumption that they were led to do so out of desperation, ignorance, etc.], can you imagine that I would condemn anyone for the much lesser concern addressed HERE? Can you imagine that Jill, who has never [in my hearing] condemned post-abortive mothers, would do so either? We strive to warn people away from abortion, while not condemning the woman who has been deceived by it… yes? Then why can we not do the same with this (lesser, but still clear and present) danger?
Jack wrote:
Not even to mention the sexism. There is no “natural path of life for women” anymore than there is one for men.
Jack, I’d urge you to be very wary of thought-processes like that; it’s the same type of thinking which throws off “what is old” in favour of “what one wishes”, and it’s extremely dangerous. Abortion is defended on those very grounds, using the same type of “false dilemma” scenarios (e.g. “chained to the kitchen with 20 children” vs. “having a responsible abortion when needed”). This is one area, I’m afraid, where secularism will clash head-on with Christianity; and I can only ask that Christianity be given a fair hearing in such a battle! The mere fact that modern man seeks to redefine himself (and his morality) does not make it good and right, thereby.
We know that Giuliana had fertility treatments. Check. We know that she is over 35 and childless. Check. Yeah, both of those things are possible risk factors–I heard this discussed on The Today Show when they talked about Giuliana’s story. But the other two things (hormonal birth control, abortion) are just guesses and assumptions and no, unless you personally know her or you’ve attempted to contact her directly to get her side you’re not ‘just asking’ her anything. You’re speculating–playing the “I’m not saying that she did, but…..”
My objection to this has nothing to do with being ‘politically correct’ or incorrect– or even correct, for that matter. It has to do with compassion–with not wanting to compound the pain of somebody who is probably hurting pretty bad right about now and doesn’t need people making these kind of judgments and gossiping about her. I know that people think celebs are fair game for this, but they are still human beings.
So wrong, Jill. Delayed childbearing is only one factor. And to use Ms. Rancic as a personal example with only conjecture is very wrong. I too gave birth very late in life. I was the last of my four sisters to get married, not by choice, but because Mr. Right simply did not come along. But, nevertheless, I am the only sister actively involved in the pro-life movement and even though I started later, I have the most children (4). You may not have intended it that way, but it comes across as very mean. And is unscientific.
Jill Stanek says:
October 27, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Denise, no. Apples to oranges. As I said, and I’ll repeat it again because I guess you’re not hearing me, Giuliana is 37. She has had 2 rounds of IVF. And I think it’s a good bet that she used contraceptives. I asked her to analyze that at any rate. Nellie hasn’t had IVF and I think it’s also safe to say she hasn’t purpsoefully delayed childbearing through contraceptives. She’s a rock solid Catholic on that point. In my mind she has the lifestyle comparable to a nun. And she’s about 90.
Denise, you’re failing to exercise judgment… to use common sense.
(Denise) Nellie apparently AVOIDED childbearing. That correlates with getting breast cancer so in at least one respect she has put herself at higher than average risk of breast cancer.
Why did Nellie Gray AVOID marriage and childbearing? Was it because she was career oriented?
Because she is not attracted to men? The last question wouldn’t have to imply lesbianism as I have two close friends who are asexual. Neither has the slightest desire for either gender.
At any rate, Nellie seems to have avoided the “natural” female path of marrying young and having children young. As far as breast cancer, she seems to have courted danger. She also seems to have avoided what you regard as what should be the norm for her sex. Her career orientation appears to be what you would consider “liberal feminist” so her lifestyle is certainly open to criticism.
And posts like the one at 5:55, Sir Paladin, is why I still think a fan club is in order. :D
Hi Jill,
No one respects and likes you more than I do.
What I found disturbing were the assumptions made about a woman who’s life we know nothing about. The woman is a TV celebrity, not a personal acquaintance or family member.
Just what do we know of this woman’s life?
Fertility and cancer are for the most part mysteries. We assume we know but the more we know the more questions we have.
Infertility is as old as the Bible, long before there were hormonal contraceptives. Giulianna is taking a risk with IVF, but the woman desperately wants a child. Our hearts can only go out to her. She suffered a devastating miscarriage. She has ended up with cancer instead. As to what caused the cancer is at best speculation. As I pointed out in previous posts there are any number of cancer causing factors in our modern society that did not exist 100 years ago.
I remember the tragic death of Dana Reeve, the widow of actor Christopher Reeve, from lung cancer. How could this be?? The woman never smoked. Well, maybe because sometimes people just get cancer for no apparent reason and maybe we don’t know as much as we assume we do. I’m sure we all know such tragic situations. Alexandra described the death of her mother from liver cancer. How did this happen? No answers.
Oh of course people speculated, they just “knew” her mother must have drank to excess.
I mentioned my great grandmother who did everything “right”…and died of breast cancer.
The mother of singer Madonna also did everything “right”…and died of breast cancer.
I think you and I have been in the medical arena long enough to know fertility, infertility, and cancer do not come wrapped in neat packages with rational reasons and simple answers. What we see instead is one contradiction after another.
To suggest we know anything of Giulianna’s life, circumstances, decisions etc is an enormous assumption, much less what caused her cancer or infertility. In her situation I would bitterly resent anyone assuming to “know” so much about my life.
Could Giulianna have had children 10-15 years ago? Who knows. Maybe she would have been facing the same struggle then.
We should keep in mind to that many “late in life” pregnancies are not choices to delay pregnancy, but rather conceptions that occured long after a woman gave up hope of pregnancy, or just finally conceived after years of trying.
If you had focused this article on the dangers of IVF, yeah, she has publicly stated she used IVF
I wish Jill’s article focused more on this angle because Guiliana has admitted going through three rounds of IVF. The dangers of IVF are not known to the wider public and I think this would be a great opportunity to raise awareness. I think the fact that Giuliana has publicized her IVF treatment so much makes it totally legit to use her as an example when talking of the dangers of IVF/fertility drugs.
I don’t disagree with the other points that Jill was making in the article. Abortion, oral contraceptives, and delayed motherhood are all significant risk factors. Also, I think leftism and feminism has put women on the wrong path in many ways, but I don’t think it should have all been lumped in with an article about this woman. It should have been a subject for another article at another time.
Jill,
What makes one 37yo woman get breast cancer and another not, the luck of the draw?
Sometimes – yes, it’s luck of the draw.
What has made breast cancer spike in women in the last 30 years – particularly young women- nothing in particular, it just is what it is?
All the things you mentioned have no doubt contributed to this trend in the overall, but in individual cases, we don’t know whether that caused her cancer or even contributed. You wrote: “While the cause of Rancic’s breast cancer cannot be ascertained, her reproductive history was sure to have played a part.” That’s not true. It MAY have played a part.
I would like to see prevention discussed as much as you, but since no one knows what caused his or her cancer, diagnosis is a much easier topic to talk about during a very difficult time. That’s why she likely seized upon it. The topic of prevention needs to be addressed by the medical community and cancer advocates. Those are the ones dropping the ball.
Giuliana has a known risk factor for contracting breast cancer: no children by the age of 35. I was not condemning her or any other woman who has no kids by age 35 with this statement. It’s just a fact.
I agree, it’s a fact, but then this sentence sounds like a little more than giving the facts: “Did Giuliana know that putting her career before marriage and children would likely play a part in her contracting breast cancer?” It’s accusatory and frankly inaccurate when you phrase it in an individual way instead of in terms of risk factors.. And in this area (putting the fertility treatments and contraceptives aside), you’re getting a lot of women who are certainly not influenced by liberal feminist thought. Nuns, people who find spouses later in life, people who are called to devote themselves to a single life, etc. I understand and agree w/ what I think you’re trying to say about delaying children and marriage just b/c you think you can and don’t want to make it a priority, but we have no idea if Guiliana is in this camp or just didn’t find someone until Bill.
Paladin,
Is it really such a lost art-form, to hear a criticism of a circumstance or action while not taking it as a condemnation of oneself as a human person?
I often lament this (usually when reading this blog), but in this case, I think it was a mistake to make the point through conjecture aimed at Guiliana personally. I appreciate all the questions she’s asking, but I don’t like the tone of this at all.
I’m still on board for a Paladin fan club, Kel!
I don’t think harassing women and the men who defend them, acting like a jerk, and name-calling helps your case any, Jasper. Just saying.
“I bet you just delete the profanity and let it remain, and wonder why the only people who ever comment anymore are the juvenile and hateful who make the pro-life movement look juvenile and hateful. ”
You watch your lousy mouth about who’s hateful and juvenille. Our pro-life team at our church is in front of the abortion mill every week and get called evey name in the book and are treated like dirt, just for praying the rosary! and displaying our pro-life banner. So, don’t give me your ‘hateful’ crap. And you have a alot of nerve dissing Jill, she always treats Catholics with respect, so doesn’t Kell. If I were you I’d apoligize quickly and go to confession.
Ok… Sorry the mods aren’t here 24/7 to catch all the inappropriate comments.
They have now been removed. And if there are any future inappropriate posts from any commenter, I would request that you email the mods or myself (emails are under “team” in the right sidebar) and let us know as soon as possible. Thanks.
Ok… Sorry the mods aren’t here 24/7 to catch all the inappropriate comments.
There would be no need to catch and delete comments after everyone sees them (that go to everyone’s e-mail inbox anyway) if you would honor your own posted rules and ban the one repeat offender.
Every post you have deleted violates 5 of the 7 rules (and one post violated 6 of the 7 rules):
Blasphemy will not be tolerated.
No swearing or slandering of others.
No deliberate inflammatory comments.
Do not violate another’s privacy.
Do not threaten fellow commenters or anyone else.
No personal, racial, ethnic or gender-based insults/slurs.
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Deleted, yes (or just edited)- but banned, apparently not. If multiple posts in a row are deleted on a daily basis, I can’t imagine what it would take to get banned. If people are allowed to comment who break the rules (you just come behind later and delete those comments), I see no point in having rules. You can just keep deleting as you are doing.
:) Some of you are almost too kind to be legal!
At any rate: part of my motivation for writing as I did, on this thread, is the fact that I’ve been in the position of making points–all of which might (?) have been valid, but which were not arranged or worded or styled with the finesse necessary to evade hurt feelings by readers… especially those whose histories sensitized them to the issues at hand. I can understand how some might dislike the juxtaposition of the points of this article, and I also understand why all of them could easily come to Jill’s mind while writing on the topic. I ask only that people take a deep breath, remind themselves that Jill did not write any of the above for the sake of maligning a woman or her family, or of being reckless and chevalier with a woman’s good name; again, if Jill’s capable of viewing a post-abortive woman with compassion, don’t you think she’s capable of viewing a woman who foolishly abused her body with known carcinogens (quite probably innocent and ignorant of the dangers) with the same compassion… and that her motive for bringing up the disparate points was one of highlighting wide-spread dangers to such women in our culture (along with Mrs. Rancic’s missed opportunity to alert the public to ways to minimize those dangers), rather than a desire to vilify anyone?
Criticize her style and arrangement of her article, if you wish (heaven knows that my own writings have been rife with gaffes which I was hard-pressed to explain!); but I’d simply ask that people take their thumbs off the triggers of the flame-throwers, and give the benefit of the doubt about a situation that seems, more and more, to be a lamentable case of crossed messages which are at cross-purposes with each other… and perhaps a well-meant post whose topics and arrangement might have gotten a bit muddled.
Jacqueline, the decision to ban is Jill’s.
If you would like to voice your disagreement with the moderation of this blog, you may email Jill at jill@jillstanek.com.
Nah, I don’t care that much. I was listed as a moderator for two seconds a few years ago and didn’t care much then either. You can run your show any way you want to run it- it’s your show.
Jill says:
Giuliana needs also to ask herself whether she delayed marriage and kids for her career. If so, she needs to look at the feminism that sold her that bill of goods with a more critical eye.
Well, now you don’t sound too sure. But just look at the headline of this article: “Liberal feminism is in small or large part to blame for Giuliana Rancic’s breast cancer”
You think Giulana needs to ask herself whether she delayed marriage, and yet you put right in the article that she DID! “Did Giuliana know that putting her career before marriage and children would likely play a part in her contracting breast cancer?”
You’ve taken a good message (that prevention is key) and packaged it with a lot of conjecture about a particular woman who happens to be going through a very painful time in her life right now. And unfortunately, now another bad/inaccurate headline is all over the internet. It’s not about political correctness. It’s about following the golden rule. It’s about respecting Giuliana’s human dignity enough to not state assumptions as facts and shout them to the mountaintops.
What an ignorant, disgusting post.
My grandmother died of breast cancer in June.
She married her first love a few weeks after he returned from Korea. They were both 20. She had 3 children before she turned 30 and never used birth control – my grandfather had a vasectomy. I’d hate to imagine what it would have been like if someone like you showed up at her funeral to “wonder” about her lifestyle choices…
I’m used to be a little put off by the celebrity obsessed, meddling, judgmental nonsense that is posted on this blog from time to time, but this is beyond any of that. Its disgusting and shameful.
Mrs. Rancic has decided to use her illness as an “educable moment”. When going public, you have to expect some speculation on how to deal with this problem.
A well-known chain-smoker, of course, should know about the likelihood of where his lung cancer originated. With Andy Kaufman, many speculate it was because of all the smoke-filled night clubs he worked in. Still, second-hand smoke is controversial.
Dana Reeve’s case is even more puzzling and disturbing. Radon? BPH plastic? If so, it will take years to pinpoint and figure out who is genetically predisposed.
Acknowledging risk factors for breast cancer is not idle speculation. It’s one thing to gossip about a neighbor. Discussing a public statement by a public figure is quite another.
Conjecture about the motives and propriety of this post is the pot calling the kettle black.
Paladin,
With respect, I think this goes beyond a lack of finesse. I think there is an objective discrepancy between what Jill claims to be writing and the points she’s trying to make and what she wrote. The result is a mess of speculation, “questions”, and individually directed commentary that assumes the answers.
And despite what Jill wrote in her response, this has nothing to do w/ political correctness. It has to do with sloppy reasoning that attempted to sweep too much under an umbrella (liberal feminism) that couldn’t hold it all and might not have anything to do w/ the individual case used to make the point.
“if Jill’s capable of viewing a post-abortive woman with compassion, don’t you think she’s capable of viewing a woman who foolishly abused her body with known carcinogens (quite probably innocent and ignorant of the dangers) with the same compassion”
I have no doubt that Jill is compassionate. None whatsoever. Just her reasoning in this one post.
Jill is not talking about anyone’s friend or acquaintance or aunt or niece or grandmother or neighbor or daughter of a coworker who had cancer is she?
Perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you can agree to disagree.
But the fight for the lives of preborn human beings continues while we argue.
Hi Amanda,
I agree that this is a personal tragedy involving a woman about who’s life and decisions we can only speculate on. Our hearts, not our judgments and assumptions, should go out to her.
Hi Carla,
I agree with you that we have far more pressing concerns than speculating on Giulianna.
No Jill was not discussing any of our relatives or friends, but Giulianna is a woman facing first a struggle with infertility and now cancer. As I said to Amanda, our hearts, not our judgments and assumptions, should go out to her.
Carla: Jill is not talking about anyone’s friend or acquaintance or aunt or niece or grandmother or neighbor or daughter of a coworker who had cancer is she?
Yes she is. I’m pretty sure Giuliana has many friends, acquaintances, and neighbors. And she’s a daughter and perhaps a niece too. Just because she’s a public figure doesn’t make her less human. And with the wonder of the internet, any of her family, friends, and neighbors can easily find this hurtful article.
It’s incredibly important that women be made aware of the risks of choices such as contraception, fertility drugs, abortion, etc. Giuliana has made her IVF treatments public, so acknowledging that fertility drugs may have contributed to her cancer seems reasonable. But speculating that she used contraception, had an abortion, and put off marriage and children due to her career steps over the line of decency. For a blog dedicated to RESPECTING LIFE anyway. I would expect that kind of stuff from a gossip rag.
Hans: Conjecture about the motives and propriety of this post is the pot calling the kettle black.
I’m not making assumptions about why Jill posted this article. I’m giving my opinion, based on the facts presented in the article, that it contains conjecture presented as fact. If Jill has more information about Giuliana’s life, like statements she’s made admitting to contraception, abortion, and delaying her marriage and her attempts to have children due to her career, then all it will take is a few links to clear this right up.
Am I the only one here who is more than annoyed at the fallacious assumption that Guiliana’s actions CAUSED her to contract cancer?… There is ample evidence that there is a correlation link, but in no way is there enough evidence to make the statement that we know what caused her cancer.
The same would be true for anyone who contracts lung cancer. If they were a smoker, you can’t just say that smoking “caused” their cancer. They may have increased chances of contracting cancer by smoking, just the same way that Guiliana may have increased her chances of getting cancer through her actions.
There is a big difference, and I believe that point needs to be made clear here.
Lrning 9:40am
Excellent post. Giulianna is someone loved by any number of people. We are indeed discussing someone’s wife, sister, daughter, granddaughter, niece, goddaughter, and very dear friend.
Hi chemdork,
If you review all the posts you will realize you are in no way alone.
Lring 9:40 am
Great post! Giulianna is beloved by her husband,her sister, her brother,her friends and her nieces and nephews. I am hurt for all of them.
Carla 8:08
Jill’s the one who choose to post an article that has nothing to do with saving babies. She’s one of our leaders so, when she post articles like this, it makes the rest of us look bad. (which makes the job of saving babies and their moms harder) Do you think the audience she’s trying to reach even got past the first few sentences? She put up this wall between her article and the people she’s trying to reach(women).
Hey Carla –
I find it dismissive to say that because Giuliana is not MY mother, my offense at the presumptuous comments and rude assumptions about my mother are irrelevant to a discussion about whether it is rude to presume and speculate about Giuliana. Everyone is someone’s daughter, sister, friend. Maybe if someone somewhere had been vocal in opposition to that kind of speculative assumption, just one person who was rude to me wouldn’t have been. It would have made a world of difference to me.
I agree that the fight for unborn lives is more important than an argument. But Jill posted the article, and people are not wrong for responding. It makes no sense to walk into a room, shout something rude, and then tell everyone else to stop focusing on unimportant stuff when they point out that you were rude.
Mary – thank you for your kind words – I have good news for you! My mother recovered, to the surprise of her doctors, after extremely invasive surgery and an ensuing year of near-constant bedrest. We watched a lot of TV together that year (and at one point, when she was just about well enough to leave the house, I brought a comforter and some pillows to a deserted afternoon showing of a movie, so that she could be comfy). She is still alive and feisty as ever these days. :)
“Jill is not talking about anyone’s friend or acquaintance or aunt or niece or grandmother or neighbor or daughter of a coworker who had cancer is she?”
Ummmm….. so Giuliana is alone in the world without friends or family? She is most certainly someone’s friend, someone’s wife, someone’s granddaughter, someone’s neighbor, someone’s coworker, someone’s cousin, someone’s sister. Should I go on? Or are you just implying that its perfectly acceptable to speculate and judge someone’s lifestyle as the cause of their cancer, so long as we assume no one who knows them personally is reading it??
This may be slightly off topic, but I am interested in the response of those here.
A friend of a friend had two rounds of IVF and the first failed. The second produced twins, one of whom died in utero and the other whose life was (and still is) in grave danger. The second twin was born this week at 23 weeks.
We know IVF carries these risks. Should she be told about these risks, should she decide to get pregnant this way again? Do we tell her that it is likely that the loss of her twin (and now possibly the second twin) was IVF? Which caused her to lose at least two children?
Or do we keep our mouths shut and let her risk her own health and the lives of future children without being told that perhaps her own personal choices put her in this situation?
My fiance and I recently went to a wedding of his high school chum’s. What I noticed, and what rather shocked and saddened me is, almost all of his peers with the exception of 1 or 2 had no kids and most had every intention of avoiding children their entire lives altogether. These people were all roughly about his age (in their 30’s! I was dumbstruck!) I couldn’t believe it. I was rather disgusted at the self-centeredness and rather hedonistic attitude which permeated the event. I somehow thought Iowans were more down-to-earth than that.
I understand the point of this article, because I’m witnessing it in my own demographic all around me every single day. Generations have been taught to avoid pregnancy and children like the plague, and they are. I see it when I bring up that I had my daughter at 21 and people immediately take a haughty tone with me. Personally, I’m disgusted that people can still be so childish and self-serving in their 30’s! XD
Hi Alexandra,
What incredible news! I couldn’t be happier for your mother, you, and your family. Especially since liver cancer usually has such a poor prognosis. I apologize that I read your post as your mother passing away. How dreadful of me.
Mary – better than you assuming she lived, and me needing to break the news to you that she hadn’t! :)
Tuesdays are my day off and I spend every Tuesday with her – I take the train up to my parents’ house about 40 minutes away, we do fun things (apple picking, afternoon movie, etc), catch up on our two favorite shows on her Tivo. It makes the rest of my week a little busy, because I don’t get a real day to take care of errands, deep cleaning my apartment, etc and am always cramming those things around otherwise busy days, but I know those Tuesdays are all gifts. :)
Plus my apartment is tiny and who I am kidding, I don’t deep-clean. ;)
Saturdays I have dinner with my dad, since we both have a long break between our matinee and evening shows. When my mom can, she comes in and has dinner with us then as well. My parents are awesome and I am very lucky!
Kel, I think it’s certainly appropriate to warn your friend or any women of the risks of IVF, and I would actually say it goes beyond appropriate into the territory of necessary.
What I would consider inappropriate is pointing at any random woman whose children died in utero or were born very premature and saying, “Feminism is to blame for the death of this woman’s child! IVF increases the risk of death or premature birth! DID SHE use IVF? Lots of women do! I’m just asking!”
BTW, I know a Godly young man who’s looking for a good woman. Any live in the Buffalo, NY area? ;P
Mary – I was relieved to see that you, among others, felt the same way.
To be honest, 4 or 5 years ago, I would have been linked to this post, read it, felt disgusted and horrified, and considered it a representative sample of the “pro life movement” as a whole. Because of my enduring friendships with a handful of people I’ve met through this blog, I now know better.
But it needs to be said, if the priority for many of you is truly saving babies, and not lifestyle policing, it is incredibly important for you to separate yourselves from gossip/tabloid trash like this. There are people out there, who, like me, would not hesitate to try to talk their friend or loved one out of having an abortion or to offer a comlpete stranger support in keeping her child or seeking adoption rather than walking in to an abortion clinic – but who cannot and will not be associated with judgmental extremist positions such as those demonstrated by this post. If the priority here is to be the sex and parenting police, make that your mission. But if the priority is still saving babies, choose your allegiances well – because this type of nonsense HAS and will continue to alienate people who would otherwise support your goal.
And it is NOT easy for me to admit I was wrong or have changed my mind on this issue – so before some of you dismiss this post as concern trolling or whatever, keep in mind that there are plenty of things that can open one’s eyes and change their perspectives. Research, conversations with friends who respect you and vis versa – etc – but victim blaming and mindless gossip are about as far away from that as you can get.
Why did I even bother to comment on this thread? I should know better.
Carrie,
It’s Jill’s blog so of course she posts whatever she would like. She doesn’t make me look bad or make our job “harder.”
Amanda,
I told my abortion story at our Banquet for Life last night. The roommate who drove me to my abortion spoke as well. She is now the Director of a Pregnancy Center. I can be a moderator here and continue to do what I can in the real world to change hearts and minds about abortion.
Carry on.
One thing that I believe is true is that feminism’s appeal is inherently limited because of its “career” orientation. Do all MEN have “careers”? Would a plumber, construction worker, or garbage collector be said to have a “career”? I know one man who would never call his job a “career” — and actively hates his job. It was recently changed from taking incoming calls and filing to telephone soliciting. He’s described it as “torture.” He hates the repetitive nature of constantly calling businesses and reciting his script. It is terribly frustrating as he will make about 300 calls a day and considers it a good day if 3 to 4 “leads” are filled out. Sometimes he goes the whole day without a single one. Despite the Do Not Call list, there are still people he calls who yell at him and insult him because they don’t like to take this call.
Does this man have a “career”?
I know other men who don’t even have jobs because they are handicapped.
Many years ago I saw an advice show that was a re-enactment program of actual counselor cases. One woman left her son in the care of her own mother while she was at her paid job. Her husband wanted her to quite the paid job to care for the boy. She didn’t want to because she said, “I’m a career woman.”
She was asked what she did and replied, “I’m a waitress.”
Her husband said, “THIS is what she calls a career.”
Hi Amanda,
Its nice to see you here. Its been a long time. Also, I offer my condolences on the loss of your grandmother. I was remiss in not doing so sooner.
Its good to hear that your contact with people on this blog has been for the most part positive and has enhanced PL people in your eyes. I always say you attract more flies with honey than vinegar, and no I’m not equating anyone with flies! I’m sure changing your mind on this issue took much soul searching and conflict, and I commend you.
I can understand Jill’s perspective on this situation and knowing Jill, I believe she speaks out of compassion and perhaps anger over Giulianna’s ordeal. It seems like such senseless suffering.
However, I think we must also be careful that we aren’t making assumptions about people’s lives and medical issues. The fact she is a celebrity makes her an easy target.
At what must be such a terrible time in her life, infertility,a devastating miscarriage, and now breast cancer, the woman deserves only our compassion and best wishes.
Hi Alexandra,
I couldn’t be happier to be so completely wrong! It does NOT get better than this.
Hi Carla, 12:57PM
And indeed you do much to change minds and hearts. Thank you.
Thank you, Mary.
PS to Amanda, Carrie, Alexandra etc. Just to clarify
Jill wrote her opinion about a specific person and that specific person’s story. To add your own anecdotes about your own aunt, cousin, friend or sister with cancer does not address anything about the article that Jill wrote. THAT was my point.
Amanda, glad to hear abouth your Mom. Great news.
…
Mary, do you think if we just treat everyone nice they’ll become pro-life? Anybody who’s pro-life stance hinges on a pro-lifer treating them nice is not pro-life.
“just treat a pro-abort nice and they’ll promise not to support the legalized execution of unborn babies”
wonderful.
Jill wrote her opinion about a specific person and that specific person’s story. To add your own anecdotes about your own aunt, cousin, friend or sister with cancer does not address anything about the article that Jill wrote. THAT was my point.
But it does! She wrote her speculation on one person’s illness; we shared our experiences on the receiving end of such speculation. To say that there is no relationship between speculating about someone, and being speculated about, makes no sense.
CT wrote, in reply to my comment:
With respect, I think this goes beyond a lack of finesse.
I may not have explained myself very well (due to lack of time–I type in quick bursts, sometimes typing faster than I can discern subtle details that I should have included). More on that, below.
I think there is an objective discrepancy between what Jill claims to be writing and the points she’s trying to make and what she wrote. The result is a mess of speculation, “questions”, and individually directed commentary that assumes the answers.
At the risk of wading into something that could (if it doesn’t dissipate blessedly into the night, like a bad dream) get more and more tangled and contentious (especially given the fierce tempers that this has seemingly ignited): let me try to explain, a bit more clearly, what I meant in my first comments. (Lord God, please protect me from the effects of Proverbs 26:17!)
Jill’s main “tactical” points seem to be the following:
(*) = qualifier: “so far as current data and research shows”
1) The delay of having one’s first child increases(*) a woman’s risk of breast (and possibly other) cancer (and possibly other cancers).
2) Exposing oneself artificially to reproductive hormones (especially non-bio-identical ones) increases(*) a woman’s risk of breast (and possibly other) cancer.
3) IVF and hormonal fertility treatments (aside from its routine mass-murder of very young children) increase(*) a woman’s risk of breast (and possibly other) cancer.
4) Procuring an abortion, especially early in her reproductive life, increases(*) a woman’s risk of breast (and possibly other) cancer. (Jill also suggested–correctly–that abortion has possible risk factors/vectors which do not directly involve “delayed child-bearing”; the artificial interruption of mammary cell development is but one such example.)
5) Our [modern Western] culture places social “pressure” (not necessarily in the “intentional and positive coercion” sense of the word) on women to delay child-birth until later (sometimes much later) than “peak/healthy” years of fertility (i.e. ages 18-26, roughly). The broad movement known as “modern feminism” has been an almost universal and strident advocate of such a delay (not only as an acceptable option, but as a PREFERRED option, vis-a-vis “striving for equality with men in the workplace”, etc.)
6) The Rancics are modern media personalities who freely associate themselves with the liberal/secular/non-Christian stances when in those venues (I think especially of Giuliana’s sneering and vitriolic attack on Carrie Prejean (Miss California) for her mild defense of traditional marriage), could reasonably be expected not to be averse to (and to be influenced by) the prevailing secular norms (especially sexual norms), and could reasonably be expected not to be well-informed of dangers which are publicised mainly by Christian sources (and/or other sources who accept significant limits on sexual license).
7) Jill (unless I’ve mistaken her) wishes to warn against the aforementioned dangers (including the rather corrosive effect of modern feminism, and its mutual exclusivity with trying to time pregnancy for the optimal biological time), and she laments the grossly-missed opportunity (born of the Rancic’s secularized ignorance) to warn against these evils (in favour of pursuing the far lesser, and already-well-known-and-well-promoted, good of “earlier screening”; it’s a bit like recommending “more frequent testing” for HIV, while saying nothing about the behaviours that usually lead to a case of it).
I really see no way that any of the above could be challenged in any coherent way, given the data at hand.
As for the actual wording of Jill’s article: I’m on less certain ground, because I can only comment on that which I read (and not on her actual intent, aside from what she’s written about her intent), but I propose this:
1) Would I (if I were writing the article, and if I didn’t err in writing what I intended) have made the references to abortion and contraception more “general”, and without reference (oblique or otherwise) to Mrs. Rancic? Most probably; Jill’s point could easily have been served by some version of “While I’m on the subject, many people don’t know that abortions and hormonal contraceptives increase one’s chances of breast (and other) cancer…” But as I said before: it would have been quite easy for me (or anyone else), especially when dealing with a topic about which one is passionate, to “continue the metaphor” and tie the protagonists of the story tightly to my own additional metaphors, etc. In short, it would be quite easy (and shallow, and gratuitous, and unjustified) for me to play “Monday Morning Quarter-Back” (as the saying goes) using the 20/20 hind-sight which I enjoy, after the fact. I urge others not to succumb too easily to the same temptation.
2) In general, I have a great deal of respect and sympathy for plaintive objections of almost any sort, so long as they’re offered with enough self-restraint and kindness (even in the midst of heated feelings) to indicate good-will; I have far less sympathy, however, for objections which are delivered out of a sort of reflexive outrage, and which indicate the domination of heated passions over self-restraint (and concern for the opponent). In fact: even those objections with which I might ordinarily be very sympathetic will, if delivered with fury, impulsiveness, or some other version of “striking with fang and claw”, lose my respect and sympathy… and they will, especially if directed at a friend, make me quite protective and angry, as often as not. I hope this explains at least a bit of my own reaction, here.
And despite what Jill wrote in her response, this has nothing to do w/ political correctness.
Jill can speak for herself more readily than can I, but: I rather suspect that the phrase “political correctness” was meant to refer to the general practise of “avoiding topics simply because someone might be offended by them”.
It has to do with sloppy reasoning that attempted to sweep too much under an umbrella (liberal feminism) that couldn’t hold it all and might not have anything to do w/the individual case used to make the point.
Had that been the only objection levelled here (spoken in such measured tones as you used), I doubt that you would have heard much from me. It is when erstwhile supporters turn, in a rage, and give unbridled vent to their outrage, etc., that I feel the need to speak out for self-control and clear thinking. Quite honestly, I didn’t see very much “benefit of the doubt” being given to Jill (quite the contrary: I saw something of a “dog-pile” on her, coupled with some–forgive me–rather crass “high-five-ing” between some of the outraged). I saw far more spitting, hissing, snarling, and hurling of anathemas; and I really don’t care for such spectacles, even against my enemies.
I have no doubt that Jill is compassionate. None whatsoever. Just her reasoning in this one post.
Would that I could be so confident in the views of many others on this forum, at the moment, on this particular topic! May I use this opportunity, once again, to ask everyone… especially those who feel the most outraged… to CALM DOWN (take a deep breath, take a shower, go for a jog, punch one’s pillow, or what-have-you) and approach this (and Jill) with a measure of self-control which more befits people of concern, reason, and compassion? Object to salient points, by all means; just lay down the flame-throwers and histrionics, I beg of you!
Jasper,
Its been my experience you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Will being nice convert every person to the PL cause. No. But will being hateful convert anyone at all?
Jasper – thats rich, coming from a guy who told me to kill myself a month or so ago.
The fact that you haven’t been banned for the vile crap you spew on this board is so hypocritical that its actually funny. The mods actually do you a favor by deleting most of your posts – because anyone who isn’t getting them emailed before they’re moderated probably doesn’t realize the extent of your tendency to be a nasty internet bully.
Paladin – you ignored the most important fact, which, while I can’t speak for anyone other than myself, is the fact that caused the most anger…
A significant percentage of women who are diagnosed with breast cancer have a genetic or hereditary predisposition to it. Meaning “liberal feminism” or any of the other gossip and nonsense in this post very well may have absolutely NOTHING to do with her having breast cancer.
Jill doesn’t know Giulliana Rancic any better than she knew my grandmother. If all it takes to make the leap to “oh she probably used birth control for 10 years, didnt want kids in her 20’s, and maybe had an abortion” is a diagnosis of breast cancer, that’s not just faulty wording, its faulty logic.
Look at the title of this post. Read all the judgements about her putting her career before marriage. Does this look to you like a warning about risk factors? NO. Its a tabloid-esque smearing of assumptions with absolutely no basis in fact. And it says “IS in small or large part to blame” – not “here are some risk factors that she engaged in”.
When you BLAME someone’s choices for their cancer, especially without knowing the facts or family history, you cross a line of decency. And seeing as I know a handful of people who contracted lung cancer and never smoked a day in their lives, I can tell you that the outrage is not related in any way to feminist issues or political correctness- but to the concept of making ignorant assumptions without facts.
Judge not lest you be judged. Jill did a whooollllllle lot of judging when she wrote this post – and she got judged back… thats how it goes.
“The fact that you haven’t been banned for the vile crap you spew on this board is so hypocritical that its actually funny. The mods actually do you a favor by deleting most of your posts – because anyone who isn’t getting them emailed before they’re moderated probably doesn’t realize the extent of your tendency to be a nasty internet bully.”
Did Bobby Bambino send you my message? God Bless you. Hope everthing is well.
Coming from a guy who said to me (and I quote): ”go take a long walk off a short pier” and ”you’re used real good by now”, your “hope” that everything is going well with me is pretty hilarious. And we both know perfectly well you don’t actually want God to bless me – so why waste your time with fake platitudes? But thanks.
Yes – he told me you said “sorry”. But you offered no explanation why I deserved the terrible things you said to me. And I saw what you posted earlier in this thread (the post that was deleted by the mods), so its quite clear to me that your apology hasn’t actually translated to you realizing how much of a bully you are and changing or censoring your behavior.
“Yes – he told me you said “sorry”.”
It’s too bad you didn’t get the full message. I said I was truly sorry and good luck with your wedding..
I said those mean things because you attacked me first (out of the blue) when you hadn’t been here for like a year. Do you remember? I’m not going back to look for it but you did. Anyways, that was no reason for me to say those awful things.
and the ‘God Bless you’ was not fake. Really, I wish you good luck. That was great what you did for your mom.
Steve
Paladin,
I don’t have too much to take issue with in what you wrote. And we’d probably be high five-ing had it been what Jill wrote. I can’t speak for others here, but let me highlight for you the sentences I take most issues with:
While the cause of Rancic’s breast cancer cannot be ascertained, her reproductive history was sure to have played a part.
What is the cause of this terrible phenomenon? While there are many factors, one key factor is delayed childbearing. Did Giuliana know that putting her career before marriage and children would likely play a part in her contracting breast cancer?
Had Giuliana followed her biological clock and the natural path of life women walked before the introduction of liberal feminism, she would have remained a virgin until marrying at a much younger age and had children younger, likely avoiding infertility and breast cancer altogether.
My issue is that the emphasis on delayed child bearing is a criticism not just of liberal feminism (which is certainly responsible for some delays), but of feminism in general. The reference to a natural path of life for women means that nuns, those who devote their lives chastely to other pursuits, those who don’t meet spouses until later in life etc are somehow not on a natural path for women. Now I know what she meant which is why I gave her the benefit of the doubt. But that’s not what she wrote. And I don’t think people are wrong to point out that what she actually wrote is not made better by an after the fact assurance that of course women who delay child bearing for “the right reasons’ aren’t meant to be the recipients of this scorn.
“May I use this opportunity, once again, to ask everyone… especially those who feel the most outraged… to CALM DOWN (take a deep breath, take a shower, go for a jog, punch one’s pillow, or what-have-you) and approach this (and Jill) with a measure of self-control which more befits people of concern, reason, and compassion? Object to salient points, by all means; just lay down the flame-throwers and histrionics, I beg of you!”
Paladin, you are always a model of restraint and reason, but I have to say that when it comes to being offended, the feelings of certain groups are considered not only valid, but outrage,anecdotes and emotions are allowed to be the rule not the exception (not on all posts but on a lot of emotional posts). To the point that when feelings were hurt, a comment thread was actually shut down not too long ago. But here, Jill actually wrote a scathing criticism of large swaths of behavior (only to later clarify that she didn’t mean to include all that she inadvertently included), the feelings of outrage are chalked up to some sort of butt hurt and people being too sensitive. I’m not saying that feelings should trump reason (i’m never in favor of that!) but I’m saying you (general you, not Paladin in particular) can’t let feelings rule the day as argument sometimes and then render other feeling based arguments as invalid overreactions.
Just to clarify, Jasper, Amanda commented about her grandmother who had cancer. I was the one who commented about my mom and her liver cancer.
So many A’s in our names. I just didn’t want you or her to get confused. :)
Well… I’ll have to echo you, CT, and say that I see little in your comments to which I’d object. I’m also reaching the very limits of what I feel confident enough (or even daring enough) to say with at least a modicum of conviction, so I think (unless something extremely unexpected happens) I may have to let this issue handle itself, from this point onward.
I’d just repeat one thing: I’m inclined to think (and may Heaven protect me from gross error in the assumptions I make, here!) that Jill intended to “attack” liberal feminism (and its penchant for corroding our respect for the natural law), secular acceptance of (and even lionization of) hormonal birth control (including “Plan B”) and IVF and other reckless manipulations of the human (and especially the female) body, and the like; and she used (for better or for worse) an example of a liberal public figure who publicly embraced IVF as a “solution” (I won’t belabour the evils of IVF, in this comment). In doing so, she was inexact in her connections and analysis of the logical implications of her comments (and need I remind anyone of how I’ve done that interminably, myself, especially in past years?); but by the time she might have amended things, a sort of virtual “lynch mob” formed, leading her to defend her writing against some rather unfounded and disproportionate accusations (which were inter-mingled with some good criticisms). The case got rather messier, from there (including some rather mind-bogglingly rude comments from a hand-ful of others–Jasper especially comes to mind, whose insults degenerated into the truly puerile and foul and utterly inexcusable).
I suppose I’ll offer this, as a last thought: if screaming and raging against each other doesn’t work (and I fully agree with you, Amanda, re: holding any “friendly sides” accountable to the same standard!)… and it very usually doesn’t (both sides usually have more than enough spit and vinegar to spare!)… might we, despite any justification we might have had for our respective outrages, freely choose to lay aside such fiery weapons, dismiss the talk of “blame” (even though it might have had merit on some points), and resolve the tactical issues with cooler heads? It’d befit those who work united to defend the dignity of every human life, would it not? (If nothing else, it would at least decrease the sales of Tylenol during the last week of October of 2011! :) )
P.S. I do not, in any way, wish to suggest that anyone’s anger (Jill’s, or anyone else’s) is in any way invalid, immoral, or otherwise wrong; that is almost certainly not true. But while we have every right to feel anger at a perceived wrong, we are still responsible for USING that anger to do good, using good tools, for good ends. We are never to let the anger “use” US, to lead us to pick up illicit weapons with which to fight a supposedly “good” fight (even good ends never justify evil means), and let our tempers lead the way (usually into horrid mischief).
“I just didn’t want you or her to get confused”
Oh yes. Sorry Amanda, your grand-mom. Thanks Alexandra, Yes, I did get confused. I hope your mom is doing well.
I’ll try to do better Paladin.
Jasper wrote:
I’ll try to do better Paladin.
I (and any other person) can ask no more than that (save to *keep* trying, etc.). I don’t know if you’d heard this, or not, but: years ago, back on the old .usenet groups (on alt.abortion, ironically enough), I was far worse than you (or any of the trolls which haunt this site, for that matter) have ever been on this site. In fact, when I finally realised that I was going too far, and took some time away from the groups, I came back (about 6 months later) to look at my saved comments… and I truly thought that someone had hacked my computer, only to place such poisonous, alien words in my mouth! I literally could not believe that I could have been so foul (and I vaguely questioned my sanity/number of personalities, for a bit, before realising that my fallen and sinful human nature was a more than adequate explanation!). In other words: I have no wish to blame or point fingers at anyone, dear fellow… I simply want such destructive nonsense (whether at your hands, or at mine, or at anyone else’s) to end.
March for Life’s Nellie Gray grew up before the rise of the feminist movement. Since feminism was not the cause, what WAS it that led her to eschew the usual pattern of marrying young and having babies to instead pursue a career while remaining single and childless?
I’ve read of a woman marrying when she was over 100 years old. Is there any possibility a man might claim America’s most famous “unclaimed blessing”?
Would it be a triumph for the institution of marriage if wedding bells were to ring for this old-fashioned spinster?